MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Victoria L. Bailey

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General

Caryn N. Szyper

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William S. Smith,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

December 7, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1603-CR-656

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Mark D. Stoner, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G06-1502-MR-643

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-656| December 7, 2016 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary

[1] A jury found William S. Smith guilty of murder, carrying a handgun without a 

license, and marijuana possession. Smith now appeals, claiming that the State 

failed to present sufficient evidence that he committed murder. We conclude 

that a reasonable finder of fact could have found Smith guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt, and therefore we affirm his murder conviction.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The relevant facts most favorable to the jury’s verdict follow. Smith started 

dating Azya Knowles in the summer of 2014. They lived approximately one 

block apart in Indianapolis, and Knowles would occasionally stay at Smith’s 

house. At some point during the relationship, Knowles told her friend, 

Uniquewa Rogers, that Smith had pulled a gun on her. In February 2015, 

Rogers noticed that Knowles “wasn’t herself” and was acting like “something 

was wrong.” Tr. at 362, 363. Knowles stayed inside Smith’s house for three 

days and refused Rogers’s requests to come outside, which Rogers found 

“unusual.” Id. at 369.

[3] On February 10, Rogers and Knowles’s brother, Logan, went to Smith’s house 

and talked to Knowles through an open window. Knowles asked Logan to 

bring her food, clothes, and a gun. Logan went to Knowles’s house and put 

food, clothes, and Knowles’s .22-caliber handgun in a duffel bag. He returned 

to Smith’s house and handed Knowles the bag through the open window.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-656| December 7, 2016 Page 2 of 7
[4] At approximately 11:30 a.m. on February 11, Pastor Marvin Churchwell saw 

Smith driving a pickup truck past his church in Indianapolis’s Haughville 

neighborhood. The truck’s windshield was damaged and appeared to have been 

“shot at,” and there was a hole in the bottom of the passenger’s window, which 

was shattered. Id. at 170. Shortly afterward, the pastor saw Smith drive by the 

church a second time. As the pastor was leaving the church between 12:00 and 

12:30 p.m., he saw Smith drive by a third time. Pastor Churchwell did not see 

anyone in the passenger’s seat.

[5] At approximately 1:30 p.m., Smith drove up to the City-County Building in 

downtown Indianapolis, which is approximately a ten- to fifteen-minute drive 

from Haughville. He had a .380-caliber semiautomatic handgun in his hand 

and yelled, “Man they was shooting at me.” Id. at 87. Officer Christopher 

Wilburn drew his gun and told Smith to drop his weapon and stop the truck. 

Smith replied, “I’m just trying to show you my gun. They shot at me.” Id. at 

89.

1

 Smith also said that he had $30,000 in cash in the truck. Sheriff’s deputies 

put the truck in park and removed Smith from the vehicle. Smith dropped his 

handgun on the driver’s seat.

[6] Officer Wilburn approached the truck and saw Knowles lying on the passenger 

floorboard. She had been shot three times: once in the forehead, once in the 

left temple, and once behind the left ear. Officer Wilburn saw “a lot of blood” 

1 Smith asserts that “[t]here were bullet holes in the truck’s sides.” Appellant’s Br. at 7 (citing Tr. at 87-88). 

The cited transcript pages do not support this assertion. Detective Charles Benner testified that he inspected 

the truck’s body and found no “bullet strikes” outside the windows. Tr. at 496.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-656| December 7, 2016 Page 3 of 7

 
on the passenger seat and inside the truck cab. Id. at 95. As Knowles was 

being removed from the truck, a .22-caliber shell casing fell to the ground. 

Another .22-caliber casing was found between the passenger’s seat and the 

center console. Both casings had been fired from the same weapon. Police did 

not find a .22-caliber firearm.

[7] Smith told a deputy, “I didn’t do this, uh, the niggas in the hood shot her, they 

were coming after me, but they shot her.” Id. at 146. He told another deputy 

that he had been chased “by people from Haughville” who “were shooting at 

him” and that he “didn’t know what to do so he came to the cops for help.” Id. 

at 158. He repeatedly asked, “[I]f I shot her, why would I bring her here? Why 

would I bring her here?” Id. at 148. Police had received no reports of shots 

being fired in Haughville and found no evidence to support Smith’s claim that 

he had been chased and shot at. A forensic expert tested five impact sites on the 

truck’s windshield, three of which were consistent with bullets being fired from 

inside the truck and two of which were inconclusive.

2

 Police searched Smith’s 

truck and found $30,000 in cash, marijuana, an unfired .380-caliber cartridge, a 

.380-caliber shell casing that had been fired from Smith’s handgun, and 

Knowles’s cell phone.

[8] Knowles later died as a result of the shooting. Three .22-caliber bullets were 

recovered from her skull, all of which had been fired from the same weapon. 

2 The shattered passenger’s window broke apart when the truck was towed to be searched pursuant to a 

warrant.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-656| December 7, 2016 Page 4 of 7

 
The small circular entry wounds were consistent with the bullets not 

penetrating a hard surface before they pierced her skull. The State’s firearms 

expert was unable to match the bullets to the .22-caliber shell casings because 

they “don’t do that at [her] laboratory.” Id. at 279.

[9] The State charged Smith with murder, carrying a handgun without a license, 

and marijuana possession. Smith represented himself at trial. A jury found 

him guilty as charged. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[10] The State alleged that Smith committed murder by knowingly killing Knowles. 

Appellant’s App. at 24; Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1. Smith claims that the State 

failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the person who killed 

Knowles. Our standard of reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the 

evidence is well settled. “When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we 

consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the 

verdict. We do not reweigh the evidence or assess witness credibility.” Wilson 

v. State, 39 N.E.3d 705, 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citation omitted), trans. denied. 

“We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the 

elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. “A conviction 

may be based upon circumstantial evidence alone.” Id. “It is not necessary that 

the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence 

is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the 

verdict.” Id. (citation omitted). Testimony tending to show a defendant’s 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-656| December 7, 2016 Page 5 of 7
attempt to conceal incriminating evidence or to manufacture exculpatory 

evidence may be considered by the jury as evidence of consciousness of guilt. 

Hughes v. State, 546 N.E.2d 1203, 1208 (Ind. 1989).

[11] Smith essentially claims that his conviction is based on speculation: “while 

[the] State did present evidence that Ms. Knowles was killed by .22 caliber 

bullets, it presented no evidence that Smith ever touched or had access to any 

.22, let alone the .22 that killed Ms. Knowles – a gun the State failed to produce 

at trial.” Appellant’s Br. at 14. Based on the circumstantial evidence and 

reasonable inferences most favorable to the jury’s verdict, a reasonable finder of 

fact could conclude as follows: Smith, who had pulled a gun on Knowles 

before, shot her in the head three times with her .22-caliber handgun, which her 

brother had brought her the day before. Smith also fired at least three shots 

through the truck’s windshield to make it look like she had been shot by 

someone outside the vehicle, but the forensic evidence indicates otherwise. 

Smith discarded Knowles’s handgun and at least one .22-caliber shell casing but 

overlooked the two that were later found in the truck.3

 Pastor Churchwell saw 

Smith’s truck with a damaged windshield and passenger’s window two hours 

before Smith arrived at the City-County Building, and no evidence was found 

to support Smith’s claim that he had been chased and shot at while driving in 

Haughville. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that there is ample

circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn to 

3 The State points out that “[i]t is highly improbable if not impossible for two shell casings shot from another 

moving vehicle to land inside Smith’s truck.” Appellee’s Br. at 17.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-656| December 7, 2016 Page 6 of 7

 
support the jury’s guilty verdict. Therefore, we affirm Smith’s murder 

conviction.

[12] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1603-CR-656| December 7, 2016 Page 7 of 7